Argument51 Myth小组第二次作业 sarning

sarningUID: 2215285

Argument 51
The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker that typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

syllabus:
1. The argument unfairly assumes that the decrease of the recuperation time of the first group is the result of taking antibiotics rather than other factors.
2. The assumption that the second group's patients suffered from the secondary infections resulting in longer recuperation time
3. The arguer cannot convince us that all of patients in two groups suffered from the secondary infections.

This medical newsletter claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to accelerate their recuperations. To support its conclusion, it cites results of a study of two groups of patients. The patients of the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and the second group did not. As a result, the recuperation time of the patients in first group were significantly shorten and the one of the second group were not reduced. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

Firstly, the argument unfairly assumes that the decrease of the recuperation time of the first group is the result of taking antibiotics rather than other factors. The arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the first group's patients' muscle strain's average degree was slight and hence they could recover quickly even they have not taken antibiotics.
Perhaps the first group's patients are comparatively young so that they could rapidly recover from muscle strain. Also perhaps the first group's doctor, Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, could reasonably give patients advices in diet, exercise and other respects, which would significantly contribute to patients' recuperations.

Secondly, similarly, the assumption that the second group's patients suffered from the secondary infections resulting in longer recuperation time is unconvincing. The arguer does not provide any evidence that a muscle strain patient must be bothered by secondary infections. Lacking such evidence, I cannot believe this is a justifiable assumption. Even assuming that the second group muscle strain patients had gotten secondary infections, the arguer fails to rule out other possibility that keep these patients from healing quickly. Perhaps the patients of the second group are generally weak in physical condition or in old age and obviously Dr. Alton, a general physician has not much experience in curing muscle strain, and all this factors would have negative effects on the process of healing.

Finally, even if the assumptions above might be convincing, the arguer cannot convince us that all patients suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The study on two groups of patients did not provide adequate accurate statistic data of how many patients have in each group and whether undesirable effects caused by antibiotics exist in first group. Therefore, this study is not representative to reach the arguer's conclusion.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more details information concerning the other differences of the two groups of patients. Moreover, the arguer must present more evidence to demonstrate that taking antibiotics is suitable and safe for every muscle strain patient before we can better evaluate the argument.

蛋蛋_psychoUID: 2234628

第一次给别人看ARGUMENT，说得不对请多多包涵！

Firstly和secondly那两段，思路比较清晰
但Finally那段，中心不太突出，有点乱，而且和上面提纲的第三点好像没有对应

语言方面，句式变化还可以多些，例如经常用perhaps会令人觉得有点单调，可以用用Chances are ……等等
而且，aspect都变成了respects，可能是由于时间有限，作者打错了吧～

我是个新手，也请大侠多多指教，帮忙改改我的argument，谢谢～！！

杏林有情天UID: 2247728

This medical newsletter claims that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics to accelerate their recuperations. To support its conclusion, it cites results of a study of two groups of patients as evidence . The patients of the first group took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment and the second group did not. As a result, the average  recuperation time of the patients in first group were significantly shorten and the one of the second group were-was  not reduced. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

Firstly, the argument unfairly assumes that the decrease of the average  recuperation time of the first group is the result of taking antibiotics rather than other factors. The arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the first group's patients' muscle strain's average degree 可以改成：the average degree of first group of patients suffed from muscle strain .是不是更好一些was slight and hence they could recover quickly even they have not taken antibiotics.
Perhaps the first group's patients are comparatively young so that they could rapidly recover from muscle strain. Also perhaps the first group's doctor, Dr.Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, could reasonably give patients advices in diet, exercise and other respects, which would significantly contribute to patients' recuperations.

Secondly, similarly, the assumption that the second group's patients suffered from the secondary infections resulting in longer recuperation time is unconvincing. The arguer does not provide any evidence that a muscle strain patient must be bothered by secondary infections. Lacking such evidence, I cannot believe this is a justifiable assumption. Even assuming that the second group muscle strain patients had gotten secondary infections, the arguer fails to rule out other possibility that keep these patients from healing quickly. Perhaps the patients of the second group are generally weak in physical condition or in old age and obviously Dr. Alton, a general physician has not much experience in curing muscle strain, and all this factors would have negative effects on the process of healing.

Finally, even if the assumptions above might be convincing, the arguer cannot convince us that all patients suffered from muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The study on two groups of patients did not provide adequate accurate statistic data of how many patients have in each group and whether undesirable effects caused by antibiotics exist in first group. Therefore, this study is not representative to reach the arguer's conclusion.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more details information concerning the other differences of the two groups of patients. Moreover, the arguer must present more evidence to demonstrate that taking antibiotics is suitable and safe for every muscle strain patient before we can better evaluate the argument
很不错，除了一些小地方需要注意，基本没什么可改的了。